Wietse,
On 2/11/21 1:49 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> sendmail -f sender recipient... < file
We could debug and solve the issue just wonder for next time: does
delivery via sendmail command not change the msg by one bit? Especially
no new or changed headers. Because we found our problem to be the
On 12/02/21 7:12 pm, Bill Cole wrote:
Mail transport often involves MTAs not under the control of the
original sender or ultimate recipient or the authorities for the
sender's domain. Traditional forwarding (e.g. ~/.forward) still exists
and many systems supporting it run Sendmail, which will
On 12/02/21 6:57 pm, Bob Proulx wrote:
Nick Tait wrote:
Nick Tait wrote:
Perhaps the advice should be: If you are using Sendmail, then (a) you
shouldn't publish a DMARC policy and (b) you shouldn't reject emails
based on failed DMARC check; but if you aren't using Sendmail then as
long as you
On 11 Feb 2021, at 23:09, Bob Proulx wrote:
> P.S. It's a little strange to see an '@' in the List-Id. But other
> than mentioning it in passing I am going to ignore it. :-)
It is a bit unusual, and back when I was using proemial I had to account for
that with a special case check to grab the
On 11 Feb 2021, at 23:55, Nick Tait wrote:
On 12/02/2021 5:49 pm, Nick Tait wrote:
Perhaps the advice should be: If you are using Sendmail, then (a) you
shouldn't publish a DMARC policy and (b) you shouldn't reject emails
based on failed DMARC check; but if you aren't using Sendmail then as
Bryan L. Gay wrote:
> I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
> postfix-us...@cloud9.net in the header. I had to update my filters to
> get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.
If one is filtering mail selecting for mail through a mailing list
then one should not use the To: or
Nick Tait wrote:
> Nick Tait wrote:
> > Perhaps the advice should be: If you are using Sendmail, then (a) you
> > shouldn't publish a DMARC policy and (b) you shouldn't reject emails
> > based on failed DMARC check; but if you aren't using Sendmail then as
> > long as you don't mind rejecting
On 11 Feb 2021, at 23:49, Nick Tait wrote:
To me that sounds like a reason not to use Sendmail, rather than a
reason not to apply DMARC policy? ;-)
Any mail system of significant size will receive some legitimate
messages that have passed through a Sendmail machine under other
management,
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:54:29PM +1000, Mark Constable wrote:
> Hi, I have a fairly typical postfix install with port 465 requiring
> authentication. I'd like to allow one sender (email address or IP) to
> inject email on port 465 without providing login/password authentication.
Permitting
On 12/02/2021 5:49 pm, Nick Tait wrote:
Perhaps the advice should be: If you are using Sendmail, then (a) you
shouldn't publish a DMARC policy and (b) you shouldn't reject emails
based on failed DMARC check; but if you aren't using Sendmail then as
long as you don't mind rejecting emails from
Hi, I have a fairly typical postfix install with port 465 requiring
authentication. I'd like to allow one sender (email address or IP) to
inject email on port 465 without providing login/password authentication.
Is this somehow possible?
On 12/02/2021 8:50 am, Bill Cole wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021, at 10:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-11 15:12, Bill Cole wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021, at 4:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
No. It very likely never will be,
I'm seeing some mailing list messages with to:
postfix-us...@cloud9.net in the header. I had to update my filters to
get them sorted into my postfix mailing list folder.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:16 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:11:32PM +1300, Nick Tait wrote:
>
> >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 05:11:32PM +1300, Nick Tait wrote:
> On 12/02/2021 7:09 am, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
> > Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
> > cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
> > Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel
On 12/02/2021 7:09 am, Jos Chrispijn wrote:
Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
source.
All mail that I receive from this mailing list is relayed to
On 11 Feb 2021, at 12:56, Chris Green wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:12:53PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be
>>> changed for each system. I was just hoping that postfix could use
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 05:04:24PM +, bitozoid wrote:
> > It can also contain intermediate CA certificates. Storing non-root CAs
> > carries a risk that they may expire before you remove them, and then
> > they may take precedence over non-expired intermediate CA certs that the
> > remote
Eugene Podshivalov:
> >
> > Wietse:
>
> The address can be transformed
> > with canonical_maps, virtual_alias_maps, it may be routed to a
> > different system with transport_maps, and it may be aliased with
> > /etc/aliases to some other local or remote address
>
> All these things apply to
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 07:49:30AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > So we thought it could be possible to somehow "import" such an affected
> > message directly into postfix queue to leave out swaks which may fix
> > something in the message. Is there such a postfix command to "import" a
> > file
Hello (not helo :-)
I am working on a spam filter and so I find myself spending a lot more quality
time with mail logs than I used to. One of the things I have noticed is that I
will get a lot of connections that send a HELO command and then disconnect.
Sometimes I get this repeated
Chris Green wrote:
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > >chris@isbdGandi$ more /etc/hosts
> > >127.0.0.1 isbdGandi.isbd.uk isbdGandi isbd localhost
> >
> > no no no.
> > 127.0.0.1 is always supposed to resolve to "localhost".
> > If those hosts don't have their assigned IP, Debian
>
> Wietse:
The address can be transformed
> with canonical_maps, virtual_alias_maps, it may be routed to a
> different system with transport_maps, and it may be aliased with
> /etc/aliases to some other local or remote address
All these things apply to locally sent messages as well, don't they?
Eugene Podshivalov:
> Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent
> From:u...@mydomain.com.
> When the email is sent directly from mail.mydomain.com there is no probe,
> right?
reject_unverified_recipient etc. do not care where mail comes from,
or where it is being sent to.
> But
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
>
> Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent
> From:u...@mydomain.com.
This is an smtpd(8)/access(5) feature, and so only applies when email is
received via SMTP and the restriction in question is applied to the
Assume reject_unverified_sender is set and an email is sent
From:u...@mydomain.com.
When the email is sent directly from mail.mydomain.com there is no probe,
right?
But when the message is sent from another server that uses mydomain.com as
relay then the probe is done, in which case Postfix probes
> On Feb 11, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Damian wrote:
>
> postconf(5) states that smtpd_relay_restrictions apply before
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions. This seems incorrect since
> postfix-3.3-20180106.
Chris Green:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:12:53PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
> > On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote:
> > > Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be
> > > changed for each system. I was just hoping that postfix could use
> > > something that was
Eugene Podshivalov:
> Let me put it this way: does Postfix do probe for outgoing mail?
reject_unverified_recipient and reject_unverified_sender make no
such distinction. That is a feature, not a bug.
reject_unverified_recipient has been used on internet gateways that
have no complete table of
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:12:53PM -0700, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote:
> > Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be
> > changed for each system. I was just hoping that postfix could use
> > something that was there already (the systems
On 11 Feb 2021, at 10:25, Benny Pedersen wrote:
On 2021-02-11 15:12, Bill Cole wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021, at 4:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
No. It very likely never will be, particularly as long as Sendmail is
in
On 11 Feb 2021, at 04:45, Chris Green wrote:
> Yes, I think this is what it comes down to, *something* needs to be
> changed for each system. I was just hoping that postfix could use
> something that was there already (the systems do know their names and
> domains already).
You keep saying
Let me put it this way: does Postfix do probe for outgoing mail?
чт, 11 февр. 2021 г. в 21:35, Wietse Venema :
> Eugene Podshivalov:
> > I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one.
> > Example from logs:
> >
> > > postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=,
> > >
Jos Chrispijn:
> Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
> cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
> Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
> source.
postfix list mail has a postfix-org sender address.
Wietse
Eugene Podshivalov:
> I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one.
> Example from logs:
>
> > postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=,
> > size=269, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> > postfix/local[20230]: 9AE7A3F56E: to=, *relay=local*,
> > delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0.01/0/0,
I meant Postfix probes use a sender address even when it is a local one.
Example from logs:
> postfix/qmgr[20192]: 9AE7A3F56E: from=,
> size=269, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
> postfix/local[20230]: 9AE7A3F56E: to=, *relay=local*,
> delay=0.02, delays=0.01/0.01/0/0, dsn=2.0.0, status=deliverable
Hi team, can it be that responses in this mailinglist are also send by
cloud9.net instead of only postfix.org?
Just asking to prevent contermination by importing parallel newsgroup
source.
Best, Jos
-- With both feet on the ground you can't make any step forward
Eugene Podshivalov:
> When reject_unverified_sender param is set and an email is sent on behalf
> of the server the double-bounce check is still performed (i.e. sent to
> itself).
What is 'the double-bounce check'?
Postfix probes use a sender address that does not receive email.
There is even a
J. Thomsen:
> This problem seems to be related to whether shared=yes is included (no
> problem) or shared=no
> (problem)
The variable was owned by the wrong code.
Wietse
diff '--exclude=man' '--exclude=html' '--exclude=README_FILES'
'--exclude=INSTALL' '--exclude=.indent.pro' -r -ur
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 4:49 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 02:51:02PM +, bitozoid wrote:
>
> > As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
> >
> > "A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
> > remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 02:51:02PM +, bitozoid wrote:
> As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
>
> "A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
> remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate CA certificates."
It can also contain intermediate CA
On 11.02.21 14:51, bitozoid wrote:
>As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
>
>"A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
>remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate CA certificates."
>
>and for 'smtp_tls_CApath':
>
>"Directory with PEM format Certification
When reject_unverified_sender param is set and an email is sent on behalf
of the server the double-bounce check is still performed (i.e. sent to
itself).
Is this all right?
Eugene
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:11 PM Matus UHLAR - fantomas
wrote:
> On 11.02.21 14:51, bitozoid wrote:
> >As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
> >
> >"A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
> >remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate CA certificates."
> >
On 2021-02-11 15:12, Bill Cole wrote:
On 11 Feb 2021, at 4:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
No. It very likely never will be, particularly as long as Sendmail is
in widespread use.
why ?
is it the 8bitmime problem
On 11.02.21 14:51, bitozoid wrote:
As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
"A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate CA certificates."
and for 'smtp_tls_CApath':
"Directory with PEM format Certification Authority
As of today, doc says for 'smtp_tls_CAfile':
"A file containing CA certificates of root CAs trusted to sign either
remote SMTP server certificates or intermediate CA certificates."
and for 'smtp_tls_CApath':
"Directory with PEM format Certification Authority certificates that
the Postfix SMTP
Hello,
postconf(5) states that smtpd_relay_restrictions apply before
smtpd_recipient_restrictions. This seems incorrect since
postfix-3.3-20180106.
Regards
Damian
On 11 Feb 2021, at 4:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
No. It very likely never will be, particularly as long as Sendmail is in
widespread use.
--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo
Tobi:
> So we thought it could be possible to somehow "import" such an affected
> message directly into postfix queue to leave out swaks which may fix
> something in the message. Is there such a postfix command to "import" a
> file as message directly into postfix queues?
sendmail -f sender
> I am working on a spam filter and so I find myself spending a lot more
> quality time with mail logs than I used to. One of the things I have noticed
> is that I will get a lot of connections that send a HELO command and then
> disconnect. Sometimes I get this > repeated several times a
Hi
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:32:25PM +0300, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
> Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
> opendmarc?
No. You can reject them however.
Bastian
--
Prepare for tomorrow -- get ready.
-- Edith Keeler, "The City On the Edge of
Hi
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:14:59PM +0100, Zsombor B wrote:
> Can you help me please why does this fall into a loop?
> postfix > localhost:1 > localhost:1 > localhost:1 > etc. until
> too much hops.
> --- master.cf
> 127.0.0.1:1 inet n - y - - smtpd
>-o
Hi,
Can you help me please why does this fall into a loop?
postfix > localhost:1 > localhost:1 > localhost:1 > etc.
until too much hops.
--- main.cf:
transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
--- /etc/postfix/transport:
recipi...@domain.com smtp:[127.0.0.1]:1
---
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 11:36:24AM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> > > On 10.02.21 15:55, Chris Green wrote:
> > > > I could just edit the value in each system, but then all the main.cf
> > > > files would be different.
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas
Hi all
we have a very strange issue with our postfix and its external
content-filter. To debug this we wanted to take an affected
message (postcat -bhq QID >/tmp/file) and use swaks with --data command
to send it again to postfix and through the content filter. But the
swaks message
does NOT
Bob Proulx:
Instead of Forward-Reverse-DNS matching the newer Best Practice is to
set up SPF, DKIM, DMARC for your own outgoing mail and other
anti-abuse for incoming mail.
On 11.02.21 12:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
Viktor Dukhovni:
The actual expectation is that the EHLO name is a valid DNS hostname,
and should resolve to the IP address of the client.
On 10.02.21 23:59, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Postfix does not seem to be able to check this right now. Wouldn't it be
good to have such features in
On 10.02.21 15:55, Chris Green wrote:
> I could just edit the value in each system, but then all the main.cf
> files would be different.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
setting "myhostname = $(dnsdomainname)" what Wietse recommended would not.
On
On 11/02/2021 09:32, Eugene Podshivalov wrote:
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
I would say not. I quarantine DMARC failures but do not reject - there
are still fps because of misconfiguration by senders or mailing lists
that are not
>
> Bob Proulx:
> Instead of Forward-Reverse-DNS matching the newer Best Practice is to
> set up SPF, DKIM, DMARC for your own outgoing mail and other
> anti-abuse for incoming mail.
Is it safe enough nowadays to drop dmarc failed incoming mail with
opendmarc?
чт, 11 февр. 2021 г. в 08:46,
60 matches
Mail list logo
